Now COME ON, I KNOW Sam Johnson has one of the most Conservative Records in Congress - I saw it in WIKIPEDIA!!!

Very funny, I like your ironic sense of humor! No, you may have heard Sam Johnson has a conservative voting record, and there are even some folks like American Conservative Union and Americans for Tax Reform who'd agree and have ranking systems which would make one believe that. However, both outfits seem to have become easy graders. An outfit called Citizens Against Government Waste ranked all Congress members in 2004 and Sam Johnson wasn't even in the top half of Republican Congressional Representatives from Texas. A perfect score of 100 merited you Taxpayer Superhero status. 80 to 99 got you Taxpayer Hero status. Hensarling was at the top with a 97, Kevin Brady a 93, Ron Paul an 87, Pete Sessions and Michael Burgess an 85, William Thornberry and Randy Neugebauer an 83, Joe Barton an 81. Sam Johnson got a 77, putting him at 'taxpayer friendly' status. John Carter got a 72, Tom DeLay got a 60, John Culberson got a 54, Lamar Smith got a 53, Kay Granger and Ralph Hall a 48, and Henry Bonilla got a 40, by the way, Compare that to the 2004 ACU ratings. ALL THE REPUBLICANS IN THE TEXAS DELEGATION GOT 90 OR ABOVE!!!! Do you trust a professor giving all of Tom DeLay's students As, or one with a reasonable grading curve?

But on Most Favored Nation status, I could see a 'libertarian' leaning Congressman being for Trade with China

Trade, yes, Most Favored Nation Status, no. That's like saying libertarians are in favor of stealing cars from folks who are raising the money to beat us up. Most Favored Nation status is the status we give to nations we TRUST. You know, fellow capitalist democracies like Japan and Norway that don't use slave labor camps and rip off patents and have grotesque human rights violations and use their growing economy to build up a military to dominate us and our friends. Red China is doing all four, but Sam Johnson doesn't seem to care, as long as his campaign contributors tell him to do it. During the Soviet days, we had trade with the USSR, but not MFN. We had Jackson-Vanik which linked trade to demilitarization and improving the USSR's human rights record. Shcharansky claimed that the two Americans who gave his fellow dissidents strength back in the day were Reagan and Scoop Jackson. It wasn't the restrictions themselves in Jackson-Vanik that single-handedly brought down the USSR, but at least it gave us SOME leverage, and at least by limiting trade we weren't going all-out to build up our very enemies. Indeed, what brought down the USSR was Reagan doubling our defense budget, which forced the USSR to contemplate doubling theirs. Ours went from 1% up to 2% of our GDP, the USSR knew that to match us, they'd have to go from 10% to 20% of theirs, and they knew they couldn't, so we started getting Gorbachevs and Yeltsins out of them instead of Brezhnevs, Andropovs, and Chernenkos. Today, with China, which has become the new USSR from a national security standpoint, we are giving away the store. Does THAT sound like a good negotiating position? Moreover, while the USSR at its height only had 270 million people, China has 1.3 billion. While China's per capital income is still pathetic compared even to Russia's today, China has a high growth rate AND a high savings rate of about 30% When your nation saves about 30% of its GDP, the military taking even a small slice of that can do scary things to our posture! So, thanks to your Congressmen, our district, a high-tech zone, is being decimiated by trade policies with a nation that grows by ripping off our patents and uses slave labor camps to crush their own workers' wages as well as our own, and thanks to your Congressman Red China's military might is growing. How someone who was in a Communist slave labor camp could be for Most Favored Nation status for Red China is beyond me!

Weirder still, while Sam Johnson votes to give away the store to Red China, he's voted repeatedly for continuing the embargo on Cuba. Gee, between an embargo and Most Favored Nation status, there's some distance! Clearly, trade and especially tourism with an outright dictatorship CAN have some good properties which help shake things up in the dictatorship. While the Cubans try to control the flow of tourists, etc., restrict where you go as a tourist, etc., they can't do a perfect job. If you go see certain areas, you'll find out how poor Cuba is and how little economic progress Communism has made for the Cubans. Also, if street vendors are talking to Spanish-speaking Americans on tour who seem to have loads of money, and then the street vendors figure out that even truck driveers with only a high school education in the USA are doing better than doctors or even high-class call girls in Cuba, this alone tends to cause SOME yearning for more freedom, better understanding of the US, etc. Yet while Sam Johnson tries to help build up Red China, he simultaneously helps enforce the embargo on Cuba which evidently keeps Castro IN power since the embargo has been in place almost all of my life and Castro and the Communists are still there. I don't know about all y'all, but where I'M from, if something doesn't work, you stop doing it. Wouldn't some intermediate status in between an embargo or Most Favored Nation status (something like Jackson-Vanik) be more reasonable for BOTH nations?

When you say Sam Johnson wants to turn the US INTO the UN instead of getting the US OUT of the UN, what do you mean?

Well, there are two ways where Sam Johnson, despite his resolutions to get us out of the UN, is actually turning the US INTO the UN, and that's by turning us into the world's policeman where we defend 135 nations around the globe for free, and by allowing H1B programs even AFTER 9/11 and EVEN AS ECONOMIC CONDITIONS WORSENED!!! Let's look at this 'globocop' role. Many of you may have seen the movie Team America, by the same folks who do South Park. Stone and Parker are Libertarians. Their movie makes their views clear - they see the Kim Jong Ils of the world as evil, the UN as incompetent, the goofy Hollyweird liberals as hypocritical and stupid. However, they also see the idea that the US will go around the world as some sort of superhero team as being a little bit ridiculous and perhaps even counterproductive. In any event, it's also very EXPENSIVE!!! YOUR TAX DOLLARS continue to defend South Korea and Japan for free, even though Japan has had a similar standard of living for years and South Korea now has a GDP larger than that of Canada. This doesn't sound like a good idea. Sam Johnson ALSO turns us into the UN by continuing H1B programs instead of reducing the quota EVEN IN BAD TIMES, and EVEN AFTER 9/11. You'd have thought that after many of the folks who gave us 9/11 turned out to be here on various visa programs, perhaps they'd have restricted these programs somewhat, but that's not true. You'd have AT LEAST thought that when the Dow went below 10,000 in June of 2002, and eventually into the 7000 range, and didn't get back to 10,000 until the end of 2003, that they'd restrict the number of H1Bs, green cards, etc. Wrong again. Yet, while Sam Johnson didn't even begin to say negative things about his own program until 2004, he does racist xenophobic grandstanding on Hispanic undocumented workers who are not taking $50 an hour jobs, but doing sub-minimum work that most Americans understandably don't want to do anymore. Sam Johnson literally said in 2004, "it'll be a cold day in hell" before he votes for any amnesty for undocumented workers, even for a guest worker program (not as voting citizens) yet on H1Bs taking $50 an hour jobs he said the program may "have worn out its welcome." Like, DUH! The Dow has only recently come back up to the 11,000 status that it enjoyed when Bush started office, yet Sam seems to take a while to figure out that you may need different H1B quotas in these fairly lousy times compared to the Contract with America days back in 1995 to 2000.

It doesn't sound like Sam Johnson is a libertarian or even very conservative - what about the War in Iraq?

He's not even as libertarian (or simply as reasonable) as Richard Nixon! Even if you're glad that we invaded Iraq (and I admit that I'm not, and am certain that the women of Iraq will be much worse off under the new government), we probably need to have a timetable for withdrawal. It was Kennedy and LBJ that got us into Vietnam, and Nixon who got us out and ended the draft. Nixon (what a concept) HAD A TIMETABLE for getting our troops out of Vietnam, and stuck to it. While Sam Johnson originally voted against Clinton's no-withdrawal wars in South East Europe (Bosnia and Kosova), and rightly so, Bush starts a war and won't even put out some sort of schedule for withdrawal, even though he himself said "Mission Accomplished" almost three years ago. Sam Johnson and most other Republicans go along as if this is standard operating procedure for Republicans, even though the Republican Party has a history of GETTING US OUT of wars, not starting them. Eisenhower got us out of Truman's war in Korea. Nixon got us out of Kennedy's and LBJ's war in Vietnam and ended the draft. Indeed, if it were not for the Vietnamization program, my opponent would never have made it home! Reagan ended the Cold War WITHOUT A SHOT BEING FIRED, and despite all the talk from the left about how he'd get us into a nuclear war. That's pretty good. Even Dubya's dad, while he started a war over Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, ended it successfully. Compare that with our no-withdrawal war in South West Asia. We may have already won, but as long as Bush can keep oil prices up by staying there, we'll never leave.

It's even conceivable that an immediate pullout would be better for the Iraqi government in two ways. 1. Our troop deaths more than doubled after the first year, and this is because the number of insurgents more than doubled. That's because there are lots of folks who may not want to overthrow the government and sure don't want Saddam Hussein back, but they don't want the USA there either. You have to remember not only the 'negative' 'corrupting' influence of our soldiers on Islamic culture but also the fact that the sex ratio in Iraq and similar nations is frequently imbalanced towards a higher than normal ratio of men to women (e.g., so-called honor killings, female infanticide via sex selective abortion, etc.) so our troops' presence in Iraq may be resented in other ways. In all honesty, if our troops left tomorrow, instead of this encouraging lots of additional insurgents, over half the current insurgents would go home to their neighborhoods in Baghdad. 2. With or without a decrease in the number of insurgents, the Shi'a government in Iraq has told us that WE ARE HOLDING THEM BACK. In other words, the US is actually restraining the current government from behaving much more ruthlessly towards the insurgents. If you consider that the insurgents would also DECREASE by over 50% if we'd even ANNOUNCE we're going to leave in, say, six months, it would be a piece of cake for the government to ruthlessly crush the insurgents.

So Sam Johnson Isn't Consistent with Bush OR Cornyn on Immigration? And what's YOUR View, Bob?

Well, Bush and Cornyn are for a guest worker program, and McCain wants to do something to take the eleven million undocumented workers and take the ones who haven't violated the law (other than crossing the border!) and are willing to pay back taxes and putting them into a guest worker program, while taking any habitual lawbreakers and sending them back. However, none of their proposals really deal with having the sorts of controls at our borders that most Americans want. Duncan Hunter for example wants a literal wall built at the border with Mexico, but with no resolution of status for the 11 million undocumented workers currently here already, and no proposed guest worker program. Since 60% of construction workers in California and Texas are Hispanic, and 90% of restaurant workers are Hispanic, and since there's not a huge line of Americans trying to get those jobs, why not have BOTH? Why not both have a guest worker program for some new arrivals and also for any of the 11 million already here if they've been law-abiding? Yet my opponent has said "it'll be a cold in hell" before he votes for any amnesty for current undocumented workers at all, even towards a guest worker program.

"Cold day in hell?" Is this how he feels about the almost 20% of the 3rd Congressional District that is Hispanic?

Actually, it goes further than that. In 1990, the district was about 15% minority, including Hispanics, blacks, and Asians. In 2000 it was closer to 37%. By 2006, it's probably over 40%. Yet we have a Congressman who seems to have a visceral hatred of Hispanics, who talks about nuking Syria, and voted against extending Hate Crimes legislation to cover sexual orientation, gender, or disability, and voted for the Istook Amendment (which fortunately failed - the current Texas Republican Platform calls for abolishing ALL hate crimes legislation!) which would have abolished translations for US citizens with limited English (even though the program costs EIGHT PENNIES per taxpaying family of four). So we've got a guy spending $3000 of our taxes per family of four on Iraq, Leaving No Child Behind and the Prescription Drug Benefit (and don't forget, the average family only makes $50,000 BEFORE taxes!) but won't spend eight pennies for translation services for someone's grandmom from Puerto Rico or a landscaper who came here to escape the Khmer Rouge and who just lost his job and is trying to collect unemployment in the meantime. Is this really the sort of image the Republican Party wants? That we're xenophobic racist warmongers who enjoy 'joking' about nuking Syria, won't spend eight pennies for translation for impoverished recent immigrants and seems to have a visceral reaction about Hispanics who are already working here peacefully, will allow gays and even racial minorites to be murdered in cold blood and won't have the Feds prosecute the perps even when gross legal malpractice has occurred on the state and local level? Look, any one of these statements or votes by Sam Johnson could be a 'brain fart' but all of them combined demonstrate a clear pattern. Not only are Sam's votes and statements "wrong" but considering that the Republican Party hasn't had a top-of-the-ticket landslide since 1984, maybe there's a reason, or even a bunch of them, and maybe it's because we're being seen as a kleptocratic, theocratic, warmongering political elite instead of what our image was with Reagan or the Contract with America.

So I see What I can do to make the Republican Party more tolerant, genuinely free market, and to return it to non-interventionist foreign policy. But I can still vote for Chris Claytor the Libertarian in November, right?

By voting for Bob Johnson instead of Sam Johnson in the Republican Primary on March 7th, you'll be putting your best foot forward to get a proven libertarian who admires the Libertarian Party but (like Ron Paul) has chosen to work within the Republican Party. If you've always wanted someone as hard-core as Ron Paul, just get Bob elected on March 7th. By the voting in the primary, you'll also have the right to go on to the State Convention in June and do something to update our Party convention to attract more minority voters and repulse fewer reasonable white non-Hispanic voters by the Republican Party's attitudes. Naturally, you can vote for the official Libertarian candidate in November instead of Bob, but you won't need to do so! Since people usually (though not always) vote party label, getting Bob elected in March almost assures a victory in November, making it even easier to vote Libertarian without worrying whether the Dems will 'somehow' win. Vote Bob Johnson in the Republican Primary March 7th.